Re: LUNATIC again
|From:||John Cowan <cowan@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, November 4, 1998, 19:30|
Mattathias Persona scripsit:
> Unfortunately, many formalists [...] do not
> make use of actual examples of spontaneous language use, but base their
> theories entirely around elicited data and speaker judgements.
More's the pity. Who could possibly believe, without the hard evidence,
that errors like "Rosa always date shranks" (for "Rosa always dated
shrinks") could possibly exist? Mixing up Tuesday and February is
trivial by comparison.
> Here I find the term "model language" useful and appropriate. A model
> language is and is not a language in the same way that a model airplane
> is and is not an airplane.
Hmm, I'm not sure what a model airplane is. Does it necessarily fly?
All the ones I know of (see in the park, etc.) actually do fly, but is
that a *necessary* property of the class?
It seems to me that a non-flying model airplane would be as much an
airplane as a teddy bear is a real bear, whereas an airplane that actually
flies is a real airplane whether small or not.
> Many artlangers have drawn an analogy between
> what they do and what model railroaders do [...].
There is no problem here, since model railroads definitely do roll.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)